Hackworth v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA
229 Ariz. 339
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hackworth, a warehouseman, sustained a right-foot Morton's neuroma with surgeries in 2009 and 2010.
- Hackworth claimed his repetitive standing and lifting at Atlas Copco contributed to or aggravated the neuroma.
- The Industrial Commission denied compensation, and an ALJ found no medical basis for compensability due to equivocal medical testimony.
- Dr. Grimes, the independent medical examiner, testified the cause could be work-related but declined to state it to a probability.
- Hackworth introduced medical literature showing a mechanically induced neuroma from repetitive trauma; Dr. Grimes’s equivocal stance created a conflict in medical causation.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals set aside the ALJ’s denial, ruling Hackworth established causation to a reasonable medical probability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether medical causation was proven to a reasonable degree of medical probability | Hackworth showed literature and treating physician support. | Grimes’s testimony was too speculative to establish causation. | Yes; causation established to a reasonable medical probability. |
| Whether Dr. Grimes’s equivocal testimony could defeat compensability | Equivocal testimony cannot negate uncontradicted evidence of causation. | Equivocal testimony may rebut or create doubt about causation. | No; equivocal testimony cannot warrant denial when other evidence supports causation. |
| Whether the ALJ properly resolved conflicting medical testimony | ALJ should credit the treating physician's evidence showing work causation. | ALJ properly resolved conflict in medical opinions. | The ALJ’s resolution was wholly unreasonable; the court favored Hackworth. |
Key Cases Cited
- W. Bonded Prods. v. Indus. Comm'n, 132 Ariz. 526 (Ariz. 1982) (necessity of establishing medical causation for compensability)
- Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 208 Ariz. 10 (Ariz. 2004) (medical and legal causation required; medical proof to establish causation)
- Fry's Food Stores v. Indus. Comm'n, 161 Ariz. 119 (Ariz. 1989) (causation proven to a reasonable degree of medical probability)
- Phelps v. Indus., Comm'n, 155 Ariz. 501 (Ariz. 1987) (medical causation need not be certain; reasonable probability suffices)
- Harbor Ins. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 25 Ariz.App. 610 (Ariz. App. 1976) (equivocal medical testimony cannot defeat compensability)
- Breidler v. Indus. Comm'n, 94 Ariz. 258 (Ariz. 1963) (sequence plus probable causal relation may support causation)
- Stainless Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 144 Ariz. 12 (Ariz. 1985) (arbitrary speculation cannot sustain denial of compensation)
- Payan v. Indus. Comm'n, 17 Ariz.App. 20 (Ariz. App. 1972) (idiopathic versus traumatic epilepsy; distinction between causation standards)
- Rosarita Mexican Foods v. Indus. Comm'n, 199 Ariz. 532 (Ariz. App. 2001) (medical testimony may be uncertain but still supports causation)